The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-12-06

Hitchcock to do the work was in
violation of the Constitution.
Mr.. Widemann said that as
the resolution originally stands he
should not vote for it, as he
considered IL the action Of
the Acknowledgement only, and
the whole Cabinet should not be
censurcd for the acts of one, unless
said act was sanctioned by them,
The second argument advanced was
economy and expediency. In re-
gard to the expediency l have no.
thing to say. In regard to the
economy, it is q matter of $3.50, so
that It is only worth $3.50 to break
the Constitution. There are two
parties to this bargain, the Ministry
and the party who took the position.
What are we to do with him7 If
the Ministry are guilty, the other
party is also guilty. think we
should include him in this vote Of
censuTe.
Mr.. Brown stated that he did not
introduce the resolution as want
of confidence, but simply to show
the Ministry what interpretations
the House put upon Article 20 of
the Constitution.
Mr.. Townsend stated that he was
not a lawyer, and could not speak
professionally on the construction
of the Constitution, But he said he
was not inclined TO take the work of
the Supreme Court out of their hands,
and he considered that the interrre-
tation of the Constitution was pecu-
liarly their work, and he was in
favor of getting out an injunction
stopping the Acknowledgement from
paying Mr.. Hitchcock anything, I'M
til the opinion of the Supreme Court
could he had on the matter.
Mr.. Smith stated that he was one
who had been consulted by the At
torney-General in regard to this APP
pointment. lie did not agree with
Mr.. Townsend that this was a mat
ter for the Supreme Court to decide.
He should not vote for the original
resolution, but if it passed would
take his share of the censure.
Minister Ashford stated that if
the resolution was adopted it would
prohibit the Government from deal
ing with any house in the city where
any members of such houses are
members of this Legislature. For
instance, take the telephones used
by the Government. If this resolu-
ton is adopted, the Government
must give up their telephones, as
there are members of this house who
have the direction of the affairs of
these companies.
Mr.. Townsend offered an amend
. ment, that The question of the con-
stitutionality of this act be referred
to the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Widemann stated that it did
not require the Supreme Court to
interpret that article of the Consti-
tuition. 1t simply resolved itself
into two questions: Is the honor
able member a duly elected member
of this House? And does the $3.50
come out of the Hawaiian Treasury!
| was obliged to give up an office of
notary public, because l wanted to
be elected a member. Does the
Constitution draw the line at law
yers? No doubt the Constitution is
inconvenient, but it should not be
violated. In regard TO the tele-
phones, he did not think that the law
applied there, as the money was paid
to corporations, and not to indivi-
duals; but if it did, stop the use of
telephones, rather than break the
Constitution.
Mr.. Nawahine stated that he
should support the resolution as it
was not mistake and the Attorney
General had not acted hastily, as
his own statements show. He asked
the opinion of some of the members,
and also the Supreme Court in re-
gard to this matter, so the action
was done in cold blood.
Two amendments were lost.
The ayes and noes were called on
the original resolution with Mr..
Castles amendment.
Ayes, 81; Noes, 10.
House took recess until 1:l5P. NJ.